Alternatif Yargısal Denetim Modeli Olarak Zayıf Form Yargısal Denetimin Uygulamadaki Örnekleri

Year 2025, Volume: 13 Issue: 1, 408 - 438, 10.07.2025

Nurullah Görgen

https://doi.org/10.56701/shd.1621566

Abstract

Yargısal denetim (anayasa yargısı) kavramı, türleri ve uygulanma alanları, Türk ve dünya literatüründe kapsamlı bir şekilde ele alınmıştır. Ancak, tartışmaların genellikle yargısal denetim modellerinden biri olan güçlü form yargısal denetimi üzerinde yoğunlaştığı söylenebilir. Bu nedenle, bu makalenin amacı, literatürde yeterince incelenmemiş alternatif bir model olan zayıf form yargısal denetimini analiz etmektir. Zayıf form yargısal denetimi, anayasal konulardaki uyuşmazlıklarda nihai karar merciinin yasama organı olduğu bir yargısal denetim türüdür. Bu model, Kanada, Birleşik Krallık ve Yeni Zelanda gibi ülkelerde benimsenmiş olup, güçlü form yargısal denetimine yöneltilen eleştirilere (meşruiyet sorunu, demokrasiyle uyumsuzluk, yargısal aktivizm vb.) bir alternatif olarak öne çıkmaktadır. Bu makalede, zayıf form yargısal denetim modelinin uygulamadaki örneklerini göstermek amacıyla, söz konusu modeli benimseyen Kanada, Birleşik Krallık ve Yeni Zelanda hukuk sistemleri incelenecektir. Bu ülkelerin seçilmesinin bir diğer nedeni, zayıf form yargısal denetimin üç farklı alt türünün bu ülkelerde uygulanıyor olmasıdır. Ayrıca, makalede yargısal denetim kavramı, yargısal denetim modellerinin yeniden sınıflandırılması, güçlü form yargısal denetime yöneltilen eleştiriler ve zayıf form yargısal denetimin avantajları da ele alınacaktır. Böylece, öğretide görece az bilinen zayıf form yargısal denetim modeli kapsamlı bir şekilde açıklanacaktır. Sonuç olarak, bu makale hem teorik çerçevede hem de uygulama örnekleri üzerinden zayıf form yargısal denetimini ele alarak, bu modelin mevcut yargısal denetim modelleri (Amerikan tipi ve Avrupa tipi) dışında, bağımsız bir yargısal denetim modeli olarak değerlendirilmesi gerektiğini ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır.

Keywords

Zayıf Form Yargısal Denetim , Yargısal Denetim , Kanada , Birleşik Krallık ve Yeni Zelanda

Examples of Weak-Form Judicial Review in Practice as an Alternative Judicial Review Model

Abstract

The concept, types, and areas of application of judicial review (constitutional adjudication) have been extensively examined in both Turkish and global literature. However, it can be said that discussions have generally focused on strong-form judicial review, which is one of the models of judicial review. Therefore, the aim of this article is to analyze an alternative model that has not been sufficiently studied in the literature: weak-form judicial review. Weak-form judicial review is a type of judicial review in which the legislature has the final authority in constitutional disputes. This model has been adopted in countries such as Canada, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand and is presented as an alternative to strong-form judicial review, which has been criticized for issues such as legitimacy concerns, incompatibility with democracy, and judicial activism. In this article, the legal systems of Canada, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand will be examined to illustrate practical examples of the weak-form judicial review model. Another reason for selecting these countries is that three different subtypes of weak-form judicial review are applied in their legal systems. Additionally, the article will discuss the concept of judicial review, the reclassification of judicial review models, criticisms directed at strong-form judicial review, and the advantages of weak-form judicial review. Thus, the relatively lesser-known weak-form judicial review model will be comprehensively explained. Ultimately, by addressing weak-form judicial review both in theoretical terms and through practical examples, this article aims to demonstrate that this model should be considered an independent judicial review model, distinct from the existing American and European models.

Keywords

Weak-Form Judicial Review , Judicial Review , Canada , The United Kingdom , and New Zealand

References

• Anayurt, Ömer. Anayasa Hukuku: Genel Kısım Temel İlkeler, Kavram ve Kurumlar. Ankara: Seçkin, 6. Basım, 2023.
• Bellamy, Richard. “The Political Form of the Constitution: The Separation of Powers, Rights and Representative Democracy”. Political Studies 44 (1996), 436-456.
• Bogdanor, Vernon. The New British Constitution. London: Hart Publishing, 2009.
• Calabresi, Steven G. The History of Growth of Judicial Review v. 1. New York: Oxford university press, 2021.
• Dicey, Albert V. Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution. ed. Roger E. Michener. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund Inc, 8Rev Ed edition., 1982.
• Dixon, Rosalind. “The Core Case for Weak-Form Judicial Review”. Cardozo Law Review 38/6 (2017), 2193.
• Dixon, Rosalind. “The Forms, Functions, and Varieties of Weak(Ened) Judicial Review”. International Journal of Constitutional Law 17/3 (09 Eylül 2019), 904-930. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moz059
• Dixon, Rosalind. “Weak-Form Judicial Review and American Exceptionalism”. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 32/3 (01 Eylül 2012), 487-506. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqs015
• Elliott, Mark - Thomas, Robert. Public law. Oxford University Press, 5. Basım, 2024.
• Erdos, David. Delegating Rights Protection: The Rise of Bills of Rights in the Westminster World. Oxford University PressOxford, 1. Basım, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199557769.001.0001
• Fendoğlu, Hasan Tahsin. Anayasa Yargısı. Ankara: Yetkin, Güncellenmiş, Düzeltilmiş ve 2020 değişikliği yapılmış 4. Baskı., 2020.
• Ferreres Comella, Victor. Constitutional Courts and Democratic Values: A European Perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009. https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300148688
• Gardbaum, Stephen. “Reassessing the New Commonwealth Model of Constitutionalism”. International Journal of Constitutional Law 8/2 (01 Nisan 2010), 167-206. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moq007
• Gardbaum, Stephen. The new Commonwealth model of constitutionalism: theory and practice. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
• Gardbaum, Stephen. “What is judicial supremacy?” Comparative Constitutional Theory. ed. Gary Jacobsohn - Miguel Schor. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784719135.00007
• Gardbaum, Stephen. “What’s so Weak about ‘Weak-Form Review’? A Reply to Aileen Kavanagh”. International Journal of Constitutional Law 13/4 (Ekim 2015), 1040-1048. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mov063
• Gardbaum, Stephen A. “The New Commonwealth Model of Constitutionalism”. American Journal of Comparative Law 49 (2001), 707. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.302401
• Geiringer, Claudia. “From Dialogue to Disagreement in Comparative Rights Constitutionalism”. International Journal of Constitutional Law 15/4 (03 Kasım 2017), 1247-1254. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mox089
• Ginsburg, Tom - Versteeg, Mila. “Why Do Countries Adopt Constitutional Review?” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Forthcoming Virginia Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 2013-29. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2319363
• Goldsworthy, J. “Homogenizing Constitutions”. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 23/3 (01 Eylül 2003), 483-505. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/23.3.483
• Gorgen, Nurullah. “The Weakening of Judicial Independence Through the Transition From the Judicialization of Politics to the Politicization of the Judiciary”. Judicial Independence in Transitional Democracies. Kitap editörü Nauman Reayat vd., 86-110. London: Routledge, 1. Basım, 2024. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003458296-6
• Gözler, Kemal. Anayasa Hukukunun Genel Esasları. Bursa: Ekin Basım Yayın, 16. Basım, 2024.
• Hiebert, Janet L. “New Constitutional Ideas: Can New Parliamentary Models Resist Judicial Dominance When Interpreting Rights?” Texas Law Review 82/7 (2004), 1963-1987.
• Hiebert, Janet L. “Parliamentary Bills of Rights: An Alternative Model?” Modern Law Review 69/1 (Ocak 2006), 7-28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2006.00574.x
• Hirschl, Ran. “The Political Origins of Judicial Empowerment through Constitutionalization:Lessons from Four Constitutional Revolutions”. Law & Social Inquiry 25/1 (Aralık 2000), 91-149.
• Hirschl, Ran. Towards Juristocracy: The Origins and Consequences of the New Constitutionalism. Cambridge London: Harvard University Press, 2004.
• Hogg, Peter W. Constitutional law of Canada. Scarborough, Ont: Thomson/Carswell, 5th ed. supplemented., 2007.
• Hogg, Peter W. - Bushell, Allison A. “The Charter Dialogue between Courts and Legislatures (Or Perhaps the Charter of Rights Isn’t Such a Bad Thing after All)”. Osgoode Hall Law Journal 35/1 (01 Ocak 1997), 75-124. https://doi.org/10.60082/2817-5069.1612
• Ip, Eric C. “The Judicial Review of Legislation in the United Kingdom: A Public Choice Analysis”. European Journal of Law and Economics 37/2 (Nisan 2014), 221-247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-011-9281-4
• Kaboğlu, İbrahim Ö. Anayasa Yargısı Avrupa Modeli ve Türkiye. Istanbul: Platon Hukuk Yayınevi, 5. Basım, 2024.
• Kahana, Tsvi. “The notwithstanding Mechanism and Public Discussion: Lessons from the Ignored Practice of Section 33 of the Charter”. Canadian Public Administration 44/3 (Eylül 2001), 255-291. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-7121.2001.tb00891.x
• Kavanagh, Aileen. Constitutional Review under the UK Human Rights Act. Cambridge, UK New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
• Kavanagh, Aileen. “The Lure and The Limits Of Dialogue”. The University of Toronto Law Journal 66/1 (2016), 83-120.
• Kavanagh, Aileen. “What’s so Weak about ‘Weak-Form Review’? The Case of the UK Human Rights Act 1998”. International Journal of Constitutional Law 13/4 (Ekim 2015), 1008-1039. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mov062
• Kelly, J. B. - Hennigar, M. A. “The Canadian Charter of Rights and the Minister of Justice: Weak-Form Review within a Constitutional Charter of Rights”. International Journal of Constitutional Law 10/1 (01 Ocak 2012), 35-68. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mor067
• Kelsen, Hans. “The Pure Theory of Law and Analytical Jurisprudence”. Harvard Law Review, 44.
• Kmiec, Keenan D. “The Origin and Current Meanings of Judicial Activism”. California Law Review 92 (2004). https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38X71D
• Leckey, Robert. Bills of Rights in the Common Law. Cambridge University Press, 1. Basım, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139833912
• Masterman, Roger - Murray, Colin. Constitutional and administrative law. Harlow, England; New York: Pearson, Second edition., 2018.
• Morison, John vd. (ed.). “Reshaping Constitutionalism”. Judges, Transition, and Human Rights. 467-478. Oxford University Press, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199204939.003.0021
• Onar, Erdal. Kanunların Anayasaya Uygunluğunun Siyasal ve Yargısal Denetimi ve Yargısal Denetim Alanında Ülkemizdeki Öncüler. AÜHF Yayınları, 2003.
• Özbudun, Ergun. Türk Anayasa Hukuku. Ankara: Yetkin Yayınları, 23. Basım, 2023.
• Özbudun, Ergun. “Türk Anayasa Mahkemesinin Yargısal Aktivizmi ve Siyasal Elitlerin Tepkisi”. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi 62/3 (2007), 258.
• Özbudun, Ergun. Türkiye’de demokratikleşme süreci: anayasa yapımı ve anayasa yargısı. Ankara: Yetkin Yayınları, 2024.
• Paris, Marie-Luce. “Setting the scene: elements of constitutional theory and methodology of the research”. Rights-Based Constitutional Review. ed. John Bell - Marie-Luce Paris. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784717612.00007
• Roach, Kent. “Dialogic Judicial Review and Its Critics”. Supreme Court Law Review 23 (2004), 49.
• Roznai, Yaniv. “Introduction: Constitutional Courts in a 100-Years Perspective and a Proposal for a Hybrid Model of Judicial Review”. ICL Journal 14/4 (23 Şubat 2021), 355-377. https://doi.org/10.1515/icl-2020-0039
• Schauer, Frederick - Alexander, Larry. “On Extrajudicial Constitutional Interpretation”. Harvard Law Review 7 (1997), 1359.
• Stephenson, Scott. From Dialogue to Disagreement in Comparative Rights Constitutionalism. Sydney: Federation Press, 1st ed., 2016.
• Tezcür, Güneş Murat. “Judicial Activism in Perilous Times: The Turkish Case”. Law & Society Review 43/2 (Haziran 2009), 305-336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2009.00374.x
• Tomlinson, Douglas. “Dialogue of the Deaf: A Comparative Legislative Analysis of Weak-Form Judicial Review”. Seton Hall Journal of Legislation and Public Policy 46/1 (24 Mart 2022). https://scholarship.shu.edu/shlj/vol46/iss1/1
• Tunç, Hasan. Karşılaştırmalı Anayasa Yargısı(Denetim Kapsamı ve Organları). Yetkin Yayınları, 1997.
• Tushnet, Mark. “Alternative Forms of Judicial Review”. Michigan Law Review 101/8 (01 Ağustos 2003), 2781-2802.
• Tushnet, Mark. “The Relation Between Political Constitutionalism and Weak-Form Judicial Review”. German Law Journal 14/12 (01 Aralık 2013), 2249-2263. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2071832200002753
• Tushnet, Mark. “The Rise of Weak-form Judicial Review”. Comparative constitutional law. ed. Tom Ginsburg - Rosalind Dixon. Research handbooks in comparative law. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 2011.
• Tushnet, Mark V. “New Forms of Judicial Review and the Persistence of Rights - And Democracy-Based Worries”. Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works 38 (2003), 813.
• Tushnet, Mark V. (ed.). Weak Courts, Strong Rights: Judicial Review and Social Welfare Rights in Comparative Constitutional Law. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 2008.
• Volcansek, Mary L. “Constitutional Courts as Veto Players: Divorce and Decrees in Italy”. European Journal of Political Research 39/3 (Mayıs 2001), 347-372. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.00580
• Waldron, Jeremy. “The Core of the Case against Judicial Review”. The Yale Law Journal 115/6 (2006), 1346.
• Young, Alison L. Parliamentary sovereignty and the Human Rights Act. Oxford; Portland, Or: Hart Publishing, 2009.
• Yüksel, İsmail. “Bir zayıf yargısal denetim yöntemi örneği olarak Kanada Haklar ve Özgürlükler Beyannamesi’nin 33. maddesi’nin (askiya alma hükmü) değerlendirilmesi”. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi. https://doi.org/10.33717/deuhfd.1089752
• “Bill of Rights Bill - Parliamentary Bills - UK Parliament”. Erişim 01 Aralık 2024. https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3227
• Birleşik Krallık İnsan Hakları Yasası (Human Rights Act 1998), Birleşik Krallık İnsan Hakları Yasası (Human Rights Act 1998). (1998).
• Hirst v. the United Kingdom (dec.), Hirst v. the United Kingdom (dec.) (Kanun No. 23304/05). K. 23304/05 (ECtHR 08 Temmuz 2003). Erişim 14 Ocak 2025. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-23304
• “House of Lords - Bellinger (FC) (Appellant) v. Bellinger”. Erişim 14 Ocak 2025. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldjudgmt/jd030410/bellin-1.htm
• “House of Lords - Ghaidan (Appellant) v. Godin-Mendoza (FC) (Respondent)”. Erişim 14 Ocak 2025. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldjudgmt/jd040621/gha-1.htm
• Kanada Anayasa Kanunu (The Constitution Act, 1982), Kanada Anayasa Kanunu (The Constitution Act, 1982). (1982).
• “Smillie, John --- ‘Who wants Juristocracy?’ [2006] OtaLawRw 2; (2006) 11 Otago Law Review 183”. Erişim 14 Ocak 2025. https://www.nzlii.org/nz/journals/OtaLawRw/2006/2.html
• “The Common Law and Civil Law Traditions”. Erişim 28 Aralık 2024. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/CommonLawCivilLawTraditions.pdf
• Yeni Zelanda Haklar bildirgesi Yasası (New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990), Yeni Zelanda Haklar bildirgesi Yasası (New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990). (1990).